From: Mark Gaffney <markgaffney@me.com>

Date: November 15, 2009 5:16:56 PM MST

To: Astro_IIDC@yahoogroups.com

Subject: Re: [Astro_IIDC] Re: ST3 Pro Exposure calculator...


Hi Perry, 

I have a 250 GB HD replacement for what was only 30 GB to start with on mine in the mail. The installation of it requires dismantling the case to get to the other side where the HD is. My brother who works in IT (PC granted!) says in a blase fashion it`ll only take me an hour or so to do! (I`m going to clone the present drive also as I`m unsure I have another edition of Leopard on my family pack) I think this might be a bit optimistic!!


Mark.

On 16/11/2009, at 11:03 AM, H P wrote:



Milton, Mark,

Thank you, Milton, for your very understandable and concise pro-con analysis. All of it really helped.

Thanks, Mark. I don't need the RAM, but I do appreciate your offer. After I bought my iBook G4, I ordered the 1 GB RAM memory card that I'll use to give me 1.5 GB total RAM with the 512 MB already "on chip." I guess yours only has 256 MB "on chip." I know some iBook G4s did.

I like OWC's in-house memory. Used it to upgrade RAM in several Macs. Never a problem.

BTW, Mark, I'm very satisfied with OS 10.4.11 altho I do have the 10.5 disk.

Thanks to you both, again.

Regards,

Perry

--- In Astro_IIDC@yahoogroups.com, Mark Gaffney <markgaffney@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Perry,
> I understand you obtained an iBook G4 at much the same time I did, I
> don`t know if it was from the same seller. The reason I`m writing is
> that mine came with a small 256 MB memory chip which was stopping me
> upgrading to Leopard besides being really slow. Milton heard about
> this & very kindly offered me 2 x 512 MB chips as he was upgrading his
> MacBook. I`ve installed one of these chips myself using the iFixit
> site for instructions (the link to this site was also provided by
> Milton!) & my memory has doubled up to 768 MB in tandem with the
> original 256 MB chip. I can`t use the 2nd 512 MB chip though from
> Milton & I was wondering if you could or would be interested in it.
> You can have it for free-it`d be my way of passing on the good will! I
> `d just have to get to a post office (which I don`t often do these
> days, having other family members pick up my parcels!) & have your
> address if you`re interested..
>
> Mark.
> On 15/11/2009, at 1:53 AM, H P wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Hey to all,
> >
> > I read this collection of posts with great interest.
> >
> > As a result, I want to pose a question. I know the answer is fraught
> > with the effect of many variables, including from the equipment used
> > down to the skill and eyesight of the observer!
> >
> > But please, don't dismiss it because of that. My intentions are
> > quite honorable!! I have no reason to start a conflict here!
> >
> > Milton, your tolerance would be most appreciated, since this
> > question perhaps should be in the autoguiding group or the
> > macastronomer group.
> >
> > Just how well can one manually guide with an OAG, as compared to
> > autoguiding with same,:
> >
> > a) strictly manually, or
> >
> > b) manually with software?
> >
> > Let's limit exposures to 30 minutes or less and have FOVs similar of
> > those in scopes with less than 7-800mm FL - no cassegrains, please.
> >
> > I've almost stopped reading the posts on the Stark Labs group
> > because of all the problems presented by the writers. Gawd, I've
> > gotten so I don't want to open the daily digest. It's become a forum
> > of gloom and despair not to mention a significant increase in the
> > minutiae of technical details. As a neophyte to guiding, I'm not
> > interested in those.
> >
> > Aren't most of those from PHD users using PCs and not Macs??? Well,
> > that's question number two. I've tried several times to get those
> > posters to put either "PC" or "Mac" in their subject line but to no
> > avail.
> >
> > Well, I'm also venting a little here. Please excuse that. However,
> > your input to the query would be most appreciated.
> >
> > And thanks,
> >
> > Perry
> >
>